Shackled by Perceptions American's Desire for Bloodless Intervention

摘要

Conventional wisdom holds that Americans eschew casualties. The U.S.- led victory over Iraq combined with a lack of consensus on America's role in the post-Cold War has generated an escalating political hypersensitivity to battle- deaths, both friendly and enemy alike. Consequently, in an effort to restrict needless deaths, U.S. political and military leaders continue to restricted the means by which the military projects power. Unfortunately, the military has responded by injecting this aversion to casualties into current military doctrine. This paper challenges conventional wisdom and examines the implications from such perceptions. Furthermore, through multiple case studies, this paper highlights the ramifications of the U.S. military including the goal of casualty limitation as a cornerstone of its doctrine. Oddly, America's lust for bloodless war is based on a single premise: the American public cannot tolerate casualties. This study refutes this premise. Nevertheless, this presupposition has led to numerous political assumptions, dictums, and revisions of politico-military doctrine. Before supporting an intervention, the American public looks to its leaders to illuminate the vital interests and principles at stake. Paradoxically, politicians are looking to an uninformed public (in the form of public opinion polls) to dictate their political stance regarding a current or impending U.S. intervention at the same time. This standoff gives rise to the heralded CNN Effect as the media's graphic images and accounts remain unchecked. Furthermore, the outcry over events such as the debacle in Somalia represents the public 's questioning of U.S. policy, not intolerance for casualties. Unfortunately, many politicians have mis-identified the root of the public's concern, only focusing on and reacting to the catalyst for the uprising.